BIO-WASTE MANAGEMENT IN 5 EU CITIES. Brusels, 24/11/2017 Jean-Benoit Bel ACR+

Transcription

1 BIO-WASTE MANAGEMENT IN 5 EU CITIES Brusels, 24/11/2017 Jean-Benoit Bel ACR+

2 Context

3 L étude Identify comparable cities Describe their biowaste management Analyse and compare performances Draft recommendations for Brussels

4 Scope Municipal bio-waste Focusing on food & kitchen waste Criteria for selection Typology and density Door-to-door collection and AD Diversity of approach

5 5 case studies

6 Collection

7 Collected fractions Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona % population covered ~ 50 % 100 % 90 % contracts buildings 100 % Assimilated waste? Schools HORECA + schools none HORECA, retailers Commerce (Horeca ) Collected fractions Kitchen waste Kitchen waste + small green waste Kitchen waste + green waste Kitchen waste + green waste Kitchen waste + small green waste ABP ABP included

8 Collection modes Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Mode Door-to-door Bring banks Containers Precollection equipment? Compostable bags? Promoted Mandatory Forbidden Promoted Promoted Frequence bio. 1/week 2/week 1/2weeks 1/week summer 1/2weeks winter 1/day Frequence res. 1/2weeks 2/week 1/week 1/week 1/day Quality controls ? -

9 Incentivising instruments No waste tax Ealing : general budget Waste tax/fee PAYT Barcelona (flat rates, or /m² for commerce) Milan (m² x nb of inhabitants) Munich : volume of residual container Zurich : tax on residual bags Pay for collection Zurich : subscription for the service

10 Collected quantities (kg/cap) 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 40,0 20,0 0,0 Ealing KW Hhld & schools Milan KW + small GW Hhld + assimilated Munich KW Hhld only Zurich KW + GW Hhld + assimilated Barcelona KW + GW Hhld + assimilated Brussels KW Hhld + assimilated Biowaste Household biowaste Assimilated biowaste Garden waste

11 Capture rate 160,0 140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 85% 40,0 20,0 50% 38% 37% 47% 0,0 Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Brussels 14% Sorted biowaste Sorted garden waste Impurities in biowaste Biowaste in residual waste

12 Capture rate 160,0 140,0 120,0 100,0 80,0 60,0 85% 40,0 20,0 50% 38% 37% 47% 0,0 Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Brussels 14% Sorted biowaste Sorted garden waste Impurities in biowaste Biowaste in residual waste

13 Capture rate 160,0 140,0 120,0 85% 10% 34% 100,0 20% 80,0 30% 60,0 85% 40,0 47% 20,0 0,0 50% 37% 38% 14% Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Brussels Sorted biowaste Sorted garden waste Impurities in biowaste Biowaste in residual waste

14 Evolution Ealing DCT 2006 Milan DCT 2012 Munich DCT+DV 1994 Zurich DCT + DV 2013 Barcelone DCT+DV

15 Seasonality (Ealing in kg/cap) Apr 14 - Jun 14 Jul 14 - Sep 14 Oct 14 - Dec 14 Jan 15 - Mar 15 Apr 15 - Jun 15 Jul 15 - Sep 15 Oct 15 - Dec 15 Jan 16 - Mar 16 Apr 16 - Jun 16 Jul 16 - Sep 16 Apr 14 - Jun 14 Jul 14 - Sep 14 Oct 14 - Dec 14 Jan 15 - Mar 15 Apr 15 - Jun 15 Jul 15 - Sep 15 Oct 15 - Dec 15 Jan 16 - Mar 16 Apr 16 Jul Jun Sep Garden waste Kitchen waste

16 Conclusions : quantities Motivation Obligation: not sufficient Assimilated biowaste: significant potential Need for constant communication Various instruments for motivation Service Equipment adapted to constraints and requirements: (aerated) biobins + containers Bags (compostable plastics, paper?) Limit nuisances (smell / leaks / flies) Quality of the collection service

17 Conclusions : quality Essential for organic recovery Possible even with high capture rates Instruments: Constant communication Controls and analysis Controls during collection: Transparent bags Adapted response (communication, refusal, fine?)

18 Treatment

19 General info Ealing: Bygrave Milan: Montello SpA Munich: TFA Zurich: Biogas Zürich AG Barcelona: ecoparc 1&2 Status Private Private Public Public (consortium) Public, operated by private Capacity 54,000 t/yr 342,000 t/yr 25,000 t/yr 25,000 t/yr 85,000 t/yr 100,000 t/yr Date Distance to city 70 km 60 km 13 km 7 km 10 km 20 km Intrants All types of biowaste Packaged food Municipal biowaste Munich biowaste Municipal + offices + private biowaste BCN biowaste

20 Process Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Pretreatment Dismantlement Bags opening and sorting stages none Shredding and sorting stages Various sorting, extraction of recyclables Process Humid Humid Dry Dry Dry Temperature Mesophilic Thermophilic Mesophilic Thermophilic Mesophilic Feeding Continuous Continuous Batch Continuous Continuous Hygienisation Pasteurisation after digestion Composting of the digestate

21 Energy recovery Ealing Milan Munich Zurich Barcelona Recovery Cogeneration Cogeneration Biomethane (2017) Cogeneration Biomethane (with WWTP) Cogeneration Energy use Heat: autoconsumption Electricity: sold Heat: autoconsumption Electricity: sold Heat: autoconsumption Electricity: sold Injection in the grid Heat: autoconsumption Electricity: sold Energy production (MWh) Per tonne (MWh/t)

22 Conclusions Digestate recovery Digestate used on land for Bygrave / composted (with solid/liquid separation) in others Users: agriculture, inhabitants, fertiliser producers Quality: ok Price: low Economic balance Mainly gate fees and energy sales Little incomes from compost Choice for location Mainly for acceptability and to limit transportation Energy recovery and potential uses?

23 Conclusions : trends in the panel Public plants: Milan working on it Lower cost, control the use of by-product Biomethane: Implemented in Montello Foreseen by Milan Significant GHG impact for Zürich + relevant synergies with WWTP

24 This project has received funding from the European Union s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No

25 Thank you! Contact: